Author
Topic: Space-Time (Read 13957 times)

There is a simple fact about space and time you're not considering Mr. Box.

Did you know that time passes more slowly in a gravitational field and we now have time keeping devises that can measure the different rates. In fact, there is a new time keeping devise that can measure the different rate of time between a clock on the surface of the earth and one only a few centimeters above the surface. And not only does gravity influence the rate that time passes, any acceleration in velocity will also affect time's passage.

Because the passage of time is altered by the character of the space surrounding the time keeping devise, the two attributes of cosmic reality "time and space" can not be divorced from each other. And there is no space empty of field, so likewise, there is no space unaffected by the time slowing effects of gravity.

This will be my last post on this thread, maybe you'll do us all a favor and consider this last attempt to teach you something of value. If this attempt falls on deaf ears, it will surprise nobody because all previous attempts have seen zero results.

If you really want to learn, you will consider what I've offered you as evidence.

It is really simple, try to destroy the space around you, ''punch the air'', burn it, explode it, try anything you want, the space is infinite in existence, therefore can not be measured , no space time.

Yet another example of TB demonstrating his total lack of understanding of spacetime and it's relationship to the stress-energy-momentum tensor. Of course he has no idea what that is or what its relation is to spacetime.

When you said try to destroy the space around you, ''punch the air'', burn it, explode it, try anything you want all you were doing was yapping about things totally unrelated to how space is created and destroyed. Frankly I can't understand why you'd say something as ignorant as that when you have no idea what you're talking about. What do you think makes you qualified to make such statements? What education, training or whatever do you have which tells us that what you claim to be true can be relied upon?

When cosmologists say that space expands/contracts during the Big Bang/Big Crunch what they're doing is describing the creation and destruction of space. The existence of spacetime is governed by a mathematical object called the Stress-Energy-Momentum Tensor. You can read all about it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stress%E2%80%93energy_tensor

The "components" of this object are obviously stress, energy and momentum. Clearly its the stress, energy and momentum of the matter which they're referring to which is altering spacetime. The following reasoning is similar to what led Einstein to derive his field equations for General Relativity (GR) in 1915. GR has been thoroughly tested time and time again since then and it's always been demonstrated to be correct. When used to describe the universe it tells us that if the mass density is small enough then there's a finite amount of matter in the universe and that means that the universe has a finite amount of space and matter in it. In any case space is now expanding and at an accelerating rate. That means that right now space is actually being CREATED.

Everything you could possible present as an argument against it has already been done so and failed. And you think you know everything even when you can't even follow the derivation of those field equations. HA!

In this case the reason you're so wrong is because you're trying to use reasoning based on Newtonian notions of space and time and are clearly and atrociously ignoring GR. GR can defy common sense a great deal of the time because our senses didn't evolve with relativity taken into account. I.e. we never had direct experience with the slowing down of clocks or the stretching and contraction of space. If you knew what the metric was and how it's used and what experiments have been done to test GR using the metric then you'd understand how we know that matter can alter space by stretching or contracting it.

Another serious problem that you have in conceptualizing the decrease in the amount of space (i.e. it's "destruction") is that you're thinking of space as a physical object like a teddy bear which you can punch, rip or tear in half. What you've been unable grasp so far is the fact that space can only be manipulated by matter and that matter is represented by the stress-energy-momentum (SEM) tensor. The SEM tensor is defined and described here: http://home.comcast.net/~peter.m.brown/sr/energy_momentum_tensor.htm

If you had a real interest in physics rather than a singular desire to try to show everyone that you're a genius then you'd read the following paper and learn how stress can contribute to the inertia of a body.

Very few people (percentage wise) know about this aspect of relativity. If you had ever chosen to learn GR then you'd already know how matter can create and destroy space. Although "destroy space" is a terrible way to describe it.

However, that would take a lot of work and I doubt that you'd understand what you're reading.

''In this case the reason you're so wrong is because you're trying to use reasoning based on Newtonian notions of space and time and are clearly and atrociously ignoring GR. GR can defy common sense a great deal of the time because our senses didn't evolve with relativity taken into account. I.e. we never had direct experience with the slowing down of clocks or the stretching and contraction of space. If you knew what the metric was and how it's used and what experiments have been done to test GR using the metric then you'd understand how we know that matter can alter space by stretching or contracting it.''

I am using my own reasoning not anyone else's thoughts or reasoning.

I think I will just give up, science is weird in every sense, almost the same has religion with lots of false belief.

You really do not understand the fairy tale life you are living within science.

You idolise people which is pathetic, complete belief in those that were before us.

''When you said try to destroy the space around you, ''punch the air'', burn it, explode it, try anything you want all you were doing was yapping about things totally unrelated to how space is created and destroyed. Frankly I can't understand why you'd say something as ignorant as that when you have no idea what you're talking about. What do you think makes you qualified to make such statements? What education, training or whatever do you have which tells us that what you claim to be true can be relied upon?''

Space can not be destroyed, science and yourself if you believe this, well what can I say, it is not normal.

What makes me qualified to say this? 42 years on the planet and simply knowing, you can not destroy space please feel free to try.

Another problem is, another problem is, I have no problems in my camp, the problems are in your camp, science is full of fallacy with no proof so why do you defend obvious lies? Obvious lies I have asked people in real life about, can you destroy a space? answer- that is an absurd question, no you can not destroy space.

When are you going to post your new theory on this forum showing us how to destroy a space?

When are you going to post your new theory showing how to record time of a space?

I think I will just give up, science is weird in every sense, almost the same has religion with lots of false belief.

Great idea. You really should give up. It's clear that it's way to hard for you to understand since what's very clear and well demonstrated to intelligent physicists all over the world is a "false belief" to the lesser intelligent such as yourself.

Not to mention that we don't like liars such as yourself here giving false information about your date of birth when you joined.

So please stop saying this ignorant crap based on zero knowledge and experience. It's far too hard for you to ever grasp and you don't demonstrate any willingness to do the work like the rest of us which is required to understand physics. So go away and just keep saying to yourself "It's all wrong. It's all wrong. It's all wrong. There's no place like home. There's no place like home. There's no place like home......"

You say and insist you can destroy a space and measure time of a space, I await your answers, you insist this. If you can not provide the answers it s obvious that I speak no false tongue, and it is indeed you who are spreading science lies that are not even science truths with experimental evidence.

People read these threads such as children, can you please stop lying to people and learning them your false thoughts.

P.s My 8 year old thinks you are barking mad if you say you can destroy a space.

I am not lacking in the information I know now, I am tenacious to my own logic.

I will make my final stand in this thread. I am getting tired in trying.

Let us elaborate and take note of the false testament of science.

1. Space itself is expanding(not observed, only matter is observed)

2. A Curvature of space(not observed, there is no evidential that shows a space fabric)

3. A space time ( not observed)

4. White light is a mixture of frequencies (not observed)

5. A time dilation (not observed)

6. Time travel (not possible)

7. Atoms (not observed)

8. A Graviton ( not observed)

None of the above are observable or experimentally proven to be true.

1. Space is transparent and infinite and matter moves through space until it is beyond our visual boundaries. (observed)

2. A Curvature of no substance is impossible, there is no evidence to support any fabric of space.(observed)

3. Time can not be measured of a space, time is meaningless of a space.(observed)

4. White light is transparent and not white, the spectral range is interaction and only shows us that by interaction or observer effect, that the transparent light can be modulated into a frequency that we define, transparent light itself is an undefined frequency and not a mixture.(observed)

5. A time dilation is a crock of , a dependent flux of emittance of the individual Caesium clock by being displaced from gravity by relative velocity does not effect time. (observed)

6. see 5

7. We do not directly observe an atom, to say it is made up of parts is pure guestimation.(observed)

8. A graviton , not observed completely made up.(observed)

That is my stance on your science by discourse of the present information, I await your providence of definitive proof to the eight subjects outlined, otherwise as a none scientist I can only conclude that you have falsities in the science process.

P.s My 8 year old thinks you are barking mad if you say you can destroy a space.

Here's a model of reality that may or may not be true, but it's worth considering. Imagine a long piece of string with knots in it. The knots are matter and the string is "space". It's possible to make knots that disappear if you pull the string on either side of them too hard (or they could "burst", thereby turning themselves into vibrations that race away along the string), and it would be possible for a knot to move along the string by rearranging itself. You can do the same kind of thing with a sheet - pull a bit up and tie a knot in in - the knot is matter while the unknotted parts of the sheet are space. You can send waves along the string or through the sheet. If the string or sheet is made of elastic, it can be stretched. If it is made of something more exotic, it may be possible to expand it without it trying to pull back together, and whatever it's made of, it may be able to source new material from somewhere to enable that expansion. It is hard to imagine how it would do that, but there may be a whole sea of such material sitting alongside the universe in another dimension. The key thing you need to take in from all this though is that "space" is not nothing. If it was nothing, how could there be any spatial separation between two items in space? If there is literally nothing between them, they must be touching.

Quote

I am not lacking in the information I know now, I am tenacious to my own logic.

It is obvious to everyone that you have your own logic, but it is not the logic I recognise as logic.

Quote

I will make my final stand in this thread. I am getting tired in trying.

The world (in the northern hemisphere) is coming back to life as Spring begins, so get out into it to enjoy nature - the forum season is ending. Get out there and live.

Quote

4. White light is a mixture of frequencies (not observed)

Are you being serious about that? Have you never seen a prism and what it does? Have you never tried mixing colours on a screen by setting the RGB pixel values?

Quote

4. White light is transparent and not white, the spectral range is interaction and only shows us that by interaction or observer effect, that the transparent light can be modulated into a frequency that we define, transparent light itself is an undefined frequency and not a mixture.(observed)

Here's a model of reality that may or may not be true, but it's worth considering. Imagine a long piece of string with knots in it. The knots are matter and the string is "space". It's possible to make knots that disappear if you pull the string on either side of them too hard (or they could "burst", thereby turning themselves into vibrations that race away along the string), and it would be possible for a knot to move along the string by rearranging itself. You can do the same kind of thing with a sheet - pull a bit up and tie a knot in in - the knot is matter while the unknotted parts of the sheet are space. You can send waves along the string or through the sheet. If the string or sheet is made of elastic, it can be stretched. If it is made of something more exotic, it may be possible to expand it without it trying to pull back together, and whatever it's made of, it may be able to source new material from somewhere to enable that expansion. It is hard to imagine how it would do that, but there may be a whole sea of such material sitting alongside the universe in another dimension. The key thing you need to take in from all this though is that "space" is not nothing. If it was nothing, how could there be any spatial separation between two items in space? If there is literally nothing between them, they must be touching.

At least you was honest, (see bold text).

The problem with myself, if it is not logical it can not be true. For a strange reason I see what I consider reality and unless something is 100% then I can not accept it to be a truth.

Certain things I mention are of axiom values, I do not understand why science would ignore this.....

Ignore me by all means , but do not ignore the axiom truths.

The true ability of a scientist is to rational think and draw a logical conclusion on something that is not known, and using Physical comparatives to assess and determine the unknown.

The art of knowing without knowing.

I know without knowing that by rational thinking I can deduce that space is infinite, I can not deduce that matter is infinite spread throughout space with spacing.

David - May I make a suggestion? TB has demonstrated time and again that he doesn't have the capacity to understand nearly anything in physics. As you can see from his last post he's now resorted to quoting an 8 year old to support his twisted logic. The more we respond to him the more craziness he brings to TNS. The only way that he can post anything is when he is given something to respond to and then he has the opportunity to respond with lunatic reasoning. It's for this reason I will never respond to him again. The combination of his intense arrogance and shear stupidity has made him the worst crackpot that I've ever seen on the internet during the nearly 20 years that I've been helping people learn physics. He even thinks that it's *I* who has asserted that space can be created and destroyed and has totally refused to acknowledge that it's the entire community of relativistic cosmologists who have determined this many decades ago using general relativity. It's a very simple concept which is beyond his understanding. And for that reason he's incapable of learning. So please join me in restoring some sense of sanity even to this shady portion of the TNS.

Consider your words from a wise perspective, you are seeing very different from the normal crackpots, it is simply you not understanding me.

The problem with myself, if it is not logical it can not be true. For a strange reason I see what I consider reality and unless something is 100% then I can not accept it to be a truth.

That's a good principle to stick with, so I'm with you on that. The thing you need to be really careful with though is checking whether you're doing your reasoning correctly or not. Running your ideas past people on a forum like this is a good way of having your reasoning tested, and what you have to do if they still disagree with you is try to work out why that's happening. You need to identify the point where your reasoning and their reasoning don't match up, and then you can point out that issue and see how they respond to it, but you need to express your ideas clearly and strip out any wild claims that will invite people to go off on long diversions where they attack those claims while they fail to recognise any crucial point that you may have made and that they may have missed. I think your biggest problem is with communication. If you can fix that, it will then be easier to explore how you reason.

The problem with myself, if it is not logical it can not be true. For a strange reason I see what I consider reality and unless something is 100% then I can not accept it to be a truth.

That's a good principle to stick with, so I'm with you on that. The thing you need to be really careful with though is checking whether you're doing your reasoning correctly or not. Running your ideas past people on a forum like this is a good way of having your reasoning tested, and what you have to do if they still disagree with you is try to work out why that's happening. You need to identify the point where your reasoning and their reasoning don't match up, and then you can point out that issue and see how they respond to it, but you need to express your ideas clearly and strip out any wild claims that will invite people to go off on long diversions where they attack those claims while they fail to recognise any crucial point that you may have made and that they may have missed. I think your biggest problem is with communication. If you can fix that, it will then be easier to explore how you reason.

''The thing you need to be really careful with though is checking whether you're doing your reasoning correctly or not''

I do check that my understanding of present information is correct , I use forums and internet information such as you-tube documentaries. My reasoning is based on simple observation of the reality of something and the Physics of something. I make no assumptions that are not reasoned firstly , then secondly self-objective to my own ideas.

Communication is seemingly the problem, which is strange because I read all your posts the same has my posts read back to me.

''You need to identify the point where your reasoning and their reasoning don't match up,''

A point where time began for instance? a big bang that before it nothing existed, not even space. Now if any one in the world can imagine a singular point and nothing else, not even space surrounding the point, then I take my hat off to them, it is logically impossible to imagine a point that is not surrounded by dark space, shut your eyes and try it, the point is always pictured in the dark space.

There was two cavemen discussing the world and the first question was, how did we get here? what are we? with a blankness of minds they looked to the skies and the black background of space for answers.

Hug says ; ''we must be prisoners inside of a cave, and the distance glows of the night sky must line the caves ceiling like our fire lines our cave floor, because compared to my cave I observe dark walls, so maybe like the ants you have in that bucket, maybe we were put here or were made here and are within a cave''.

Huggy , the smarter of the two, sits and thinks for a while, then replies; '' When I am in my cave I observe a space within the cave , and outside of the cave is more space, so if we are in a space within a cave within a space within a cave, then that must mean that after that there is more space. I also observe that when the fire on the cave floor dims, the cave walls become a darkness and I can no longer see the cave walls compared to the walls of space. I also observe that when you walk away from me with your lit torch, eventually you and the torch vanish into the blackness of the night. Maybe the blackness of the walls of space are the same as the blackness of night, and we can just not see the objects that have vanished into the darkness, because at distance I can neither see you or the lit torch''.

Hug replies ; '' so how many times can we fit a cave inside of a bigger cave, and the bigger cave inside of an even bigger cave, and keep repeating this?''

Science says space itself is expanding, and after that there is nothing, impossible and comparative to a flat earth theory.

A point where time began for instance? a big bang that before it nothing existed, not even space. Now if any one in the world can imagine a singular point and nothing else, not even space surrounding the point, then I take my hat off to them, it is logically impossible to imagine a point that is not surrounded by dark space, shut your eyes and try it, the point is always pictured in the dark space.

Physics often steps beyond logical limits in the way it states things, and that can mislead the believers and repel the disbelievers. The way to fix that would be to get physicists to be more careful in the way they use language so that they don't make claims about things not existing when they might exist, or that there was no time before the big bang. It is not certain that the big bang came from a singularity - it may just have been a very dense clump of stuff. The fabric of space that the stuff we see resides within was also compressed into that clump of stuff, but that doesn't mean there can't be an external space fabric (potentially infinite) within which the other space fabric is expanding - physics doesn't talk about such an external space as we have no way of detecting it, so it's left for philosophy to consider it and speculate about it, and indeed to think about whether it needs to exist at all. What is wrong is for physics to state that it doesn't exist when physics doesn't know. This is an area where you are actually free to imagine for yourself without being told that you're wrong. The idea that time started at the big bang and that there was no time before that is also just an assertion which is "true" within the bounds of a favoured theory, but the theory is not guaranteed to be correct. The problem we have in this case is that a lot of people have bought into that theory so heavily that they consider it to be true (and in many cases they regard it as proven), and that makes them assert things without qualifying their assertion with an "if" tag.

This makes it hard to get your foot in the door when discussing the nature of reality, because you don't know whether people are talking out of their hats or if they're standing on firm ground, and the number of qualifications tied to their name isn't always a useful guide. When you make a suggestion and get shouted down by someone holding to the official line, you need to know enough about the theory/theories they've bought into to be able to tell whether they're parroting dogma or thinking for themselves, and once you know enough to be able to tell the difference you can then press them to clarify where their assertions come from and whether they're backed by experiment or ideology.

The key advice to follow is the old one: know your enemy. Study what they believe and do your best to see if you can make their beliefs fit reality as you see it, and then go on the attack, homing in on the parts that don't seem to match up properly. Pick one issue at a time and become an expert in that. Don't go for everything at once, because you won't have had time to think more than a fraction of it through properly. Latch onto a single problem and explore it in depth - lay bare the problem by analysing it in great detail so that everyone has a chance of seeing the fault that you have spotted (or of spotting the point where your reasoning has gone astray). At the moment you're a drunk man in the dark with a blunderbuss shooting lead shot into everything you can hear rustling around you. Buy yourself a bright torch and study one thing at a time with great care.

A point where time began for instance? a big bang that before it nothing existed, not even space. Now if any one in the world can imagine a singular point and nothing else, not even space surrounding the point, then I take my hat off to them, it is logically impossible to imagine a point that is not surrounded by dark space, shut your eyes and try it, the point is always pictured in the dark space.

Physics often steps beyond logical limits in the way it states things, and that can mislead the believers and repel the disbelievers. The way to fix that would be to get physicists to be more careful in the way they use language so that they don't make claims about things not existing when they might exist, or that there was no time before the big bang. It is not certain that the big bang came from a singularity - it may just have been a very dense clump of stuff. The fabric of space that the stuff we see resides within was also compressed into that clump of stuff, but that doesn't mean there can't be an external space fabric (potentially infinite) within which the other space fabric is expanding - physics doesn't talk about such an external space as we have no way of detecting it, so it's left for philosophy to consider it and speculate about it, and indeed to think about whether it needs to exist at all. What is wrong is for physics to state that it doesn't exist when physics doesn't know. This is an area where you are actually free to imagine for yourself without being told that you're wrong. The idea that time started at the big bang and that there was no time before that is also just an assertion which is "true" within the bounds of a favoured theory, but the theory is not guaranteed to be correct. The problem we have in this case is that a lot of people have bought into that theory so heavily that they consider it to be true (and in many cases they regard it as proven), and that makes them assert things without qualifying their assertion with an "if" tag.

This makes it hard to get your foot in the door when discussing the nature of reality, because you don't know whether people are talking out of their hats or if they're standing on firm ground, and the number of qualifications tied to their name isn't always a useful guide. When you make a suggestion and get shouted down by someone holding to the official line, you need to know enough about the theory/theories they've bought into to be able to tell whether they're parroting dogma or thinking for themselves, and once you know enough to be able to tell the difference you can then press them to clarify where their assertions come from and whether they're backed by experiment or ideology.

The key advice to follow is the old one: know your enemy. Study what they believe and do your best to see if you can make their beliefs fit reality as you see it, and then go on the attack, homing in on the parts that don't seem to match up properly. Pick one issue at a time and become an expert in that. Don't go for everything at once, because you won't have had time to think more than a fraction of it through properly. Latch onto a single problem and explore it in depth - lay bare the problem by analysing it in great detail so that everyone has a chance of seeing the fault that you have spotted (or of spotting the point where your reasoning has gone astray). At the moment you're a drunk man in the dark with a blunderbuss shooting lead shot into everything you can hear rustling around you. Buy yourself a bright torch and study one thing at a time with great care.

I agree some science is stated has fact and needs proper representation to save misleading readers, I admire your honesty.

My problem is I have studied enough to know enough and to make conclusion, I believe in axiom values, and there is several subjects that are logically axioms without observation needed which I mostly state.

I find one problem then this effects something else, that is why I seem to be multi-tasking ideas.

I will try to calm and start at the beginning maybe, starting with the logic of the big bang.

As stated by physicist Brian Greene in his book The Elegant Universe, pages 26 and 27, all objects are constantly on the move at the speed of light within Space-Time.

Google "The_Elegant_Universe-B.Greene.pdf"

All that can be done is change the direction of that constant ongoing motion.

The outcome of this "Absolute" motion that's ongoing within the "Absolute" Space-Time environment,is Special Relativity itself. The Special Relativity can be darn confusing if you have not managedto discover the "Absolute" foundation of which the Special Relativity itself resides within.

As stated by physicist Brian Greene in his book The Elegant Universe, pages 26 and 27, all objects are constantly on the move at the speed of light within Space-Time.

Google "The_Elegant_Universe-B.Greene.pdf"

All that can be done is change the direction of that constant ongoing motion.

The outcome of this "Absolute" motion that's ongoing within the "Absolute" Space-Time environment,is Special Relativity itself. The Special Relativity can be darn confusing if you have not managedto discover the "Absolute" foundation of which the Special Relativity itself resides within.

As stated by physicist Brian Greene in his book The Elegant Universe, pages 26 and 27, all objects are constantly on the move at the speed of light within Space-Time.

That's a common misconception. It's meaningless to speak of something "moving" through spacetime. That phrase is only meant as an analogy and should never be used to mean anything physical. Saying that something is moving through spacetime is equally meaningless. Greene is doing all layman a disservice to relativity enthusiasts by saying something like that. Shame on him!

As stated by physicist Brian Greene in his book The Elegant Universe, pages 26 and 27, all objects are constantly on the move at the speed of light within Space-Time.

That's a common misconception. It's meaningless to speak of something "moving" through spacetime. That phrase is only meant as an analogy and should never be used to mean anything physical. Saying that something is moving through spacetime is equally meaningless. Greene is doing all layman a disservice to relativity enthusiasts by saying something like that. Shame on him!

I apologise to you, it is obvious to me now from forum time, that you really are a scientist, is that you in the download I downloaded from off here?

Objects travelling through space, creating time , could not be seen if they travelled at c, they would be invisible.

As stated by physicist Brian Greene in his book The Elegant Universe, pages 26 and 27, all objects are constantly on the move at the speed of light within Space-Time.

That's a common misconception. It's meaningless to speak of something "moving" through spacetime. That phrase is only meant as an analogy and should never be used to mean anything physical. Saying that something is moving through spacetime is equally meaningless. Greene is doing all layman a disservice to relativity enthusiasts by saying something like that. Shame on him!

I haven't looked the file up or followed the link, but I wondered if that particular claim might be related to the idea that "stationary" things are "travelling" through the time dimension at c.

Time is a dependent experience that occupies dimensions of space an occupied space existence travelling forward time through a space. Space itself is ageless and immortal and the mortal time travels through the ageless immortal space. Something that has immortality can only logically be presumed infinite with no end or beginning and isotropic in all directions after all if your were immortal you could travel in any direction for an infinite distance. Our time is finite only finite by death and a finite time universe somewhat 38 billions years old, only by limited distance of observation and a said expanding space. Space itself has no physical structure, it is not balloon like with surface, it is empty like except the transparent dark you see through, and the radiation charging the CBMR that is to weak for us to see through without intensity of the radiation. A dark cave is not absence of light, it is absence of sight, with heat detector devices I could see you, and if I had evolved to see by CMBR alone, again I would see you. It is never really dark while the existence of cmbr remains, that what makes it not void. It is also never really light, that is all in your head, and your night vision eyes only work at specific frequencies and intensity. Other species evolve better and they naturally see in the darkness of the night. A time dilation is nothing, arbitrary time devices do not effect ageless immortal space, each clock was dependent to gravitational field and velocity and is an independent experience for each clock. Space does not have an edge, it just has no large enough light sources at distance by vanishing points of matter.

Objects travelling through space, creating time , could not be seen if they travelled at c, they would be invisible.

I know you have given a lot of thought to light, but some alternative thoughts:

A true one: the only objects we know that travel at the speed of light are photons, and we do see those when they fall on our retina.

A relative one: any object which has a rest mass, would have infinite mass at the speed of light. As it would be 'in yer face' it is unlikely you could miss such an object, or rather, unlikely it could miss you. Unlikely you would survive the encounter!

A mythology one: I am aware you don't believe in relativity, so assume an object could travel at the speed of light. If passing through our solar system it would reflect the sun's light and because of persistence of vision we would see a line of light. What arc this would be visible over I haven't bothered to calc, but I assume that on both approach and retreat there would be a point where the Doppler effect means the light would be outside of visible range.

Objects travelling through space, creating time , could not be seen if they travelled at c, they would be invisible.

I know you have given a lot of thought to light, but some alternative thoughts:

A true one: the only objects we know that travel at the speed of light are photons, and we do see those when they fall on our retina.

A relative one: any object which has a rest mass, would have infinite mass at the speed of light. As it would be 'in yer face' it is unlikely you could miss such an object, or rather, unlikely it could miss you. Unlikely you would survive the encounter!

A mythology one: I am aware you don't believe in relativity, so assume an object could travel at the speed of light. If passing through our solar system it would reflect the sun's light and because of persistence of vision we would see a line of light. What arc this would be visible over I haven't bothered to calc, but I assume that on both approach and retreat there would be a point where the Doppler effect means the light would be outside of visible range.

A relative one: any object which has a rest mass, would have no mass at the speed of light. As it would be 'in yer face' it is unlikely you could miss such an object, or rather, unlikely it could miss you. Unlikely you would survive the encounter!

I haven't looked the file up or followed the link, but I wondered if that particular claim might be related to the idea that "stationary" things are "travelling" through the time dimension at c.

Yes. It's based on the viewpoint that the ds in ds^2 = gab dxa dxb is sometimes called a "distance" because it looks like the expression for distance in Euclidean geometry. In SR its merely an analogy based on the way it looks. But some misguided people insist on interpreting it as the "distance between two points in spacetime" and then that distance divided by the proper time between the two events is called the speed through spacetime. The funny thing about this definition is that the speed of a photon through spacetime does not have the value

Quote from: Thebox

I apologise to you, it is obvious to me now from forum time, that you really are a scientist, ...

So all this time you thought I was lying about it? Unbelievable! Is that what you normally do, i.e. assume people are lying to you about something like that? If it'd make you happy I'll scan my degree into my computer and post an image of it in this forum. It will have to wait though. A long time ago when I moved from one place to another it got lost in the process. I've been planning on getting another one for a long time. I just contacted my old alma-mater and will be getting a copy of it in a few weeks.

In all the years I've spent on the internet I've never seen someone who wasn't a physicist claim to be one. It's too easy to catch someone in a lie like that because it's very difficult to get the education of a physicist by self study. It's far too difficult for the average person. I'd wager that people who aren't a physicist don't claim they are because they'd be afraid of being asked a question that any physicist could answer but which a non-physicist most likely couldn't answer.

Quote from: Thebox

... is that you in the download I downloaded from off here?

What download are you referring to?

Quote from: Thebox

Objects travelling through space, creating time , could not be seen if they travelled at c, they would be invisible.

A true one: the only objects we know that travel at the speed of light are photons, and we do see those when they fall on our retina.

If the graviton is discovered someday and has the properties we believe that it does then the graviton also has zero proper mass and therefore travel at the speed of light. I believe that they will because gravitational waves also travel at the speed of light.

Quote from: Colin2B

A relative one: any object which has a rest mass, would have infinite mass at the speed of light.

While that's correct, I myself try to avoid making statements like. Since no object can travel at the speed of light we'll never be able to measure the particles proper mass.

Quote from: Colin2B

A mythology one: I am aware you don't believe in relativity, ...

Really? He actually doesn't "believe" relativity? I don't think I was aware of that. What does he base that belief on?

If the graviton is discovered someday and has the properties we believe that it does then the graviton also has zero proper mass and therefore travel at the speed of light. I believe that they will because gravitational waves also travel at the speed of light.

So all this time you thought I was lying about it? Unbelievable! Is that what you normally do, i.e. assume people are lying to you about something like that? If it'd make you happy I'll scan my degree into my computer and post an image of it in this forum. It will have to wait though. A long time ago when I moved from one place to another it got lost in the process. I've been planning on getting another one for a long time. I just contacted my old alma-mater and will be getting a copy of it in a few weeks.

In all the years I've spent on the internet I've never seen someone who wasn't a physicist claim to be one. It's too easy to catch someone in a lie like that because it's very difficult to get the education of a physicist by self study. It's far too difficult for the average person. I'd wager that people who aren't a physicist don't claim they are because they'd be afraid of being asked a question that any physicist could answer but which a non-physicist most likely couldn't answer.

Quote from: Thebox

... is that you in the download I downloaded from off here?

What download are you referring to?

Quote from: Thebox

Objects travelling through space, creating time , could not be seen if they travelled at c, they would be invisible.

Objects don't create time by moving through space.

All this time I thought you wee a member from other forum giving me a hard time, I have had bad experiences on other forums that the mods let the members behave like a school yard name calling, and mods even joined in.

The video was about time, and a chap sitting in a wheel chair?

And objects are time moving through space, you wanted to know what time was, I have told you , logically only things that can ''die'' or be destroyed can have time. Time is not relevant to anything else and may Newtons sword slash it from wiki.

You can use x,y,z to plot a vector, you can draw a line that does not really exist, you can put a time to it which does not really exist, you have just calculated travelling time of an object, space is static.

A true one: the only objects we know that travel at the speed of light are photons, ...

I knew there were other particles with zero mass but I don't post things unless I know for certain. I did some checking. As of 2014 the only two particles having zero mass which have been discovered are photons and gluons. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massless_particle

It's expected that if gravitons are ever discovered then they too will have zero mass.

Upon looking for something else I ran across this post, written by the forum crackpot;

Quote from: Thebox

You say and insist you can destroy a space and measure time of a space, I await your answers, you insist this. If you can not provide the answers it s obvious that I speak no false tongue, and it is indeed you who are spreading science lies that are not even science truths with experimental evidence.

Nobody ever said anything about "measure time of a space" since that's such a screwy statement I can't make out what it's supposed to mean. And you can await answers all you want. That's just a favorite way that crackpots try to provoke people into endless arguments. One of the reasons I gave up on trying to help you is for crap like this

Quote from: Thebox

If you can not provide the answers it s obvious that I speak no false tongue, ...

That's one of the most ignorant statements a person can make. It's irrational to think that if a person can't provide you a proof or something than that thing is wrong. But you've never been that rational so its expected. But the reason I stopped trying to help you is because I made several attempts in proving my case. I explained to you that general relativity allows for both an expanding and a contracting universe. If our universe is spatially closed then it used to be extremely small. So small that it was too small to contain a baseball. The universe started expanding about 13.2 billion years ago. When that started to happen space started to be created. That means that there was more and more of it as time went by. By "more and more of it" its meant that you could actually measure how much space there was with a tape measure. Of course there were no tape measures back then and it was expanding too fast and it was too hot etc. to do that. However the process is still going on, space is still expanding, the universe is still growing in size.

I wasn't the one to prove this was the case. It was done long before I was born. Solutions to Einstein's equations in general relativity are famous for being notoriously difficult to solve. While I an certainly follow and understand the derivation I very much doubt that you can. So if I showed you a proof you'd be unable to grasp it. Now you're demanding experimental proof when all I've said to date that it's possible, i.e. that general relativity predicts it. The only experimental evidence that makes sense to talk about is that which is used to test general relativity. It's also possible for a universe to contract. If there were no dark energy and the mass density was too small then the day would come when the universe would stop expanding and then start to contract. When that happens there becomes less and less space as time goes on. That's what is meant by "space being destroyed." I.e. when there is less space in the universe it's said to be less by space being destroyed. However, if you don't like that terminology, or if its the terminology that is bothering you then use your own words - just to make you comfy!

What makes you the raving crackpot are statements like this one

Quote from: Thebox

and it is indeed you who are spreading science lies that are not even science truths with experimental evidence.

You're a scumbag claiming that I lied about anything when you're too ignorant and stupid to be able to understand the physics. But everything I've said is in any text on relativistic cosmology. You're simply too lazy to look it up or do a google search. You can learn about the expansion of space here: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/astro/hubble.html#c0

If the universe expands it can only do that in space-time meaning that space is continually expanding and applying the same theory in reverse it should give us the opposite so as to say contraction might destroy space.

Quote from: Thebox

People read these threads such as children, can you please stop lying to people and learning them your false thoughts.

Children should never think that what they see posted in a forum is correct. After all, look at all the bogus nonsense that you post on a daily basis.

Quote from: Thebox

P.s My 8 year old thinks you are barking mad if you say you can destroy a space.

You're son has an idiot for a father. No wonder he can't grasp cosmology with someone as dumb as you trying to teach it to him. Besides, nobody bases what's logically correct in physics based on the thought processes of an 8 year old, unless you're a raving lunatic such as yourself.

Quote from: Thebox

I am not lacking in the information I know now, I am tenacious to my own logic.

Upon looking for something else I ran across this post, written by the forum crackpot;

Quote from: Thebox

You say and insist you can destroy a space and measure time of a space, I await your answers, you insist this. If you can not provide the answers it s obvious that I speak no false tongue, and it is indeed you who are spreading science lies that are not even science truths with experimental evidence.

Nobody ever said anything about "measure time of a space" since that's such a screwy statement I can't make out what it's supposed to mean. And you can await answers all you want. That's just a favorite way that crackpots try to provoke people into endless arguments. One of the reasons I gave up on trying to help you is for crap like this

Quote from: Thebox

If you can not provide the answers it s obvious that I speak no false tongue, ...

That's one of the most ignorant statements a person can make. It's irrational to think that if a person can't provide you a proof or something than that thing is wrong. But you've never been that rational so its expected. But the reason I stopped trying to help you is because I made several attempts in proving my case. I explained to you that general relativity allows for both an expanding and a contracting universe. If our universe is spatially closed then it used to be extremely small. So small that it was too small to contain a baseball. The universe started expanding about 13.2 billion years ago. When that started to happen space started to be created. That means that there was more and more of it as time went by. By "more and more of it" its meant that you could actually measure how much space there was with a tape measure. Of course there were no tape measures back then and it was expanding too fast and it was too hot etc. to do that. However the process is still going on, space is still expanding, the universe is still growing in size.

I wasn't the one to prove this was the case. It was done long before I was born. Solutions to Einstein's equations in general relativity are famous for being notoriously difficult to solve. While I an certainly follow and understand the derivation I very much doubt that you can. So if I showed you a proof you'd be unable to grasp it. Now you're demanding experimental proof when all I've said to date that it's possible, i.e. that general relativity predicts it. The only experimental evidence that makes sense to talk about is that which is used to test general relativity. It's also possible for a universe to contract. If there were no dark energy and the mass density was too small then the day would come when the universe would stop expanding and then start to contract. When that happens there becomes less and less space as time goes on. That's what is meant by "space being destroyed." I.e. when there is less space in the universe it's said to be less by space being destroyed. However, if you don't like that terminology, or if its the terminology that is bothering you then use your own words - just to make you comfy!

What makes you the raving crackpot are statements like this one

Quote from: Thebox

and it is indeed you who are spreading science lies that are not even science truths with experimental evidence.

You're a scumbag claiming that I lied about anything when you're too ignorant and stupid to be able to understand the physics. But everything I've said is in any text on relativistic cosmology. You're simply too lazy to look it up or do a google search. You can learn about the expansion of space here: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/astro/hubble.html#c0

If the universe expands it can only do that in space-time meaning that space is continually expanding and applying the same theory in reverse it should give us the opposite so as to say contraction might destroy space.

Quote from: Thebox

People read these threads such as children, can you please stop lying to people and learning them your false thoughts.

Children should never think that what they see posted in a forum is correct. After all, look at all the bogus nonsense that you post on a daily basis.

Quote from: Thebox

P.s My 8 year old thinks you are barking mad if you say you can destroy a space.

You're son has an idiot for a father. No wonder he can't grasp cosmology with someone as dumb as you trying to teach it to him. Besides, nobody bases what's logically correct in physics based on the thought processes of an 8 year old, unless you're a raving lunatic such as yourself.

Quote from: Thebox

I am not lacking in the information I know now, I am tenacious to my own logic.

Oh, please! You're the most ignorant person on this forum.

Although this idiot is tired from a long days labour I feel the need to reply to your post of nothing but childish insults. You may claim to be some sort of scientist but you are certainly not a professional or a gentlemen. My son and daughter have an idiot for a father yet my daughter wins awards at school at the age of 8 and can read any book you give her or can operate a computer and can type accurately. My son is only six but also can operate a computer and his reading skills are coming on great. Both of my children can cross a road safely are well aware of the stranger rule and do not have accidents because this idiot father as learnt them and is still learning them life and to avoid random dangers or random dangerous situations that you Sir could not even comprehend the sophistication of thought that I do not just apply to physics but apply to everyday. I am a genuine thinker without prejudiced belief and if I could be bothered I could discourse your statement shredding all the information and rewrite it to absolute truth values that obviously yourself could never understand because you accepted education and what was said before your time like you even admit in the post saying

You're a scumbag claiming that I lied about anything when you're too ignorant and stupid to be able to understand the physics. But everything I've said is in any text on relativistic cosmology.

any one can be a parrot I can quote wiki all day in which that would mean I am super smart according to your standards.

I see you and any other person like a Dictaphone stuck on repeat and consistent to repeating text that is written . I am still waiting to hear something smart from yourself.

PLEASE POST A NEW THEORY IF YOU ARE SO SMART. PUT UP OR SHUT UP

When that started to happen space started to be created.

YOU CA NOT CREATE SPACE/ SPACE CAN NEITHER BE DESTROYED OR CREATED/ SPACE IS INFINITE LIKE THE LOGICAL AXIOM OF A BOX INSIDE A BOX THAT i SHOWED. ONE ANSWER CAN ONLY BE TRUTH BECAUSE HERE IS NO OTHER ANSWER.

SPACE WITHIN A SOLID OR A SOLID WITHIN A SPACE WITHIN A SOLID IS INFINITE REGARDLESS WHAT WE CAN SEE OF SPACE.

Physics 101 for something to expand it 100% has to have something to expand into meaning space or expanding space inside an expanding solid that is expanding into a space.FACTS NOT FICTION

tHE ONLY POSSIBLE WAY A SPACE CAN EXPAND IS IF IT IS INSIDE A SOLID AND THE SOLID IS EXPANDING LIKE BEING AT THE INSIDE CENTER OF A BALLOON.

added thought- when an object expands by heat does the center of the sold object become hollow?

is it possible that space is expanding because we are in a vacuum inside a solid that is expanding by heat inside of a space?

The Naked Scientists® and Naked Science® are registered trademarks.
Information presented on this website is the opinion of the individual contributors
and does not reflect the general views of the administrators, editors, moderators,
sponsors, Cambridge University or the public at large.